Proposed Alaska dam pushes state to examine hydropower options

Mile 184 on the Susitna River
halfway between Anchorage and Fairbanks may look a little different in 12
years.

Imagine a 700-foot high dam
with a reservoir 39 miles long. That's what could be there if the proposed $4.5
billion Susitna-Watana hydroelectric project secures permits and financing. The project got a "pass
go" from Alaska's Senate and the project's main proponent, Gov. Sean
Parnell, in mid-July.

The largest proposed U.S. dam
in decades, it would have a generation capacity of 600 megawatts, comparable to
that of the Vermont
Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon, VT. In comparison, the Hoover Dam on
the Colorado River on the Nevada-Arizona border stands 726 feet tall and
generates 2,078 megawatts.

"It's time for Alaska to
make the needed investment in renewables that we have in abundance, more than
any state in this nation," Parnell
said in a July news conference. The project would help meet the state's
mandated energy target, which requires half its electricity need be met with
renewable sources by 2025.

It’s a big jump for a state
that was getting 53 percent of its electricity from natural gas as of 2009. Hydropower
accounted for 19 percent, and other renewable resources for 0.2 percent.

What's more, the state has a
history of choosing fossil fuels over renewable ones. In the 1980s, it spent
$227 million to study dam sites on the same river, then abandoned the project
when oil prices dropped and better natural gas prospects surfaced.

But the plan seems a little
more feasible this time around — the 1980s projects were larger (about $5.4
billion in 1985 dollars).

Another
pricey non-renewable energy project may tempt the state, though. The $7.5 billion Alaska
Stand-Alone Pipeline project, an in-state, state-subsidized natural gas
pipeline 317 miles south on the Susitna River in Cook Inlet 737 miles in lenght between Prudhoe Bay and the Cook Inlet area was proposed the
same day of the dam’s approval, and its price tag could
create problems if both projects go to the bond market for financing at the
same time, said senator Lesil McGuire at an In-State Gas Caucus meeting. The pipeline plans were bolstered by To further shake up the mix on what gas is available in the state, the U.S. Geological
Survey, announced
in June results of a new survey of the inlet's tappable energy resources. That report
revealed a much larger treasure trove of natural gas and oil reserves than had
been previously estimated, thanks in part to better recovery technology.

Even more alluring is what the
pipeline would do for ratepayers. The Daily News-Miner reported that it "could
be expected to deliver natural gas to Fairbanks at less than one-half the
current retail price here, according to the state-owned Alaska Gasline
Development Corp.’s analysis last month."

Whatever happens with
financing, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation's chief executive officer Dan
Fauske says electricity demand will make both projects appropriate. "His
analysis showed that both the big Susitna River hydroelectric project proposed
by Gov. Sean Parnell and the in-state line would be needed," the Juneau Empirereported.

Interestingly, opponents of the
dam concerned about environmental impacts appear to be pushing Alaska to stay reliant on fossil fuel. Richard
Leo, a member of the newly formed Coalition for Susitna Dam Alternatives,
questioned whether the dam was necessary when the natural gas reserves could
already fill the state’s energy needs. He fears the dam will impact caribou
habitat and salmon runs, becoming "destructive on a massive scale." Climate
change may already be impacting the state, but that doesn’t mean it precious
resources should be traded for their energy,
he says.

"Massive dam projects have
been shown internationally across the past 20 years to no longer be the most
effective way to generate electricity…their potential destructiveness outweighs
the amount of electricity they can create."

More from Energy & Industry

The author needs to brush up on Alaskan geography.The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline project, (aka "the bullet line") is proposed to be 737 miles from Prudhoe Bay south to Anchorage. A 35 mile spur will supply gas to Fairbanks.Fairbanks currently trucks liquid natural gas about 300 miles from Cook Inlet. Most use fuel oil for heating in this coldest city in the US. Only about 2% of the heating is from LNG. Gas in Anchorage is $0.89/ CCF, nationally $0.40/CCF, Fairbanks it's $2.33/ CCF. Clearly Fairbanks will benefit greatly at half its current price.The recent USGS announcement of more reserves in Cook Inlet than previous estimates, did nothing to bolster the pipeline plans. Since Anchorage is on the shores of Cook Inlet the proposed pipeline would not even be needed if these new reserves prove to be economically recovered. The photo of the Susitna River is a bit miss leading. The damed section of the river is only responsible for 16% of the total flow shown.The area was studied extensively in the 1980's. Salmon cannot navigate Devil's Canyon down stream from the Watana Dam site. No salmon spawning grounds have been found upstream of these rapids. The outflow from the dam is proposed to very little from the natural flow. Locations downstream should experience little or no change.

Greg Nagle

Aug 23, 2011 09:48 AM

Important points were made by this commenter, i wondered about the same issues on salmon migration when I read the piece, if this information is accurate, it might be a hydro project that can work out pretty well environmentally, or one might hope.

One might hope that people in Alaska are very aggressive in doing home weatherization but perhaps too much to hope for (??)